Add members to a group or channel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only tell the agent this is a write operation in an open world; the description adds the return contract (ids invited plus those refused), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It still omits error/permission conditions such as privacy-restricted targets, existing members, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero padding, and the scope/precondition is front-loaded before the identifier-resolution and return details. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, identifier formats, and the return shape. Missing only failure-mode detail (why a user would be 'refused') and permission nuance, which are secondary for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that 'users' accepts @username or numeric id, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about the 1–20 item bound or what identifier format 'chat' accepts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('invite one or more users into a group/channel') plus the governing scope condition ('this account administers'). That scope phrase implicitly separates it from telegram_join_chat (self-join), telegram_add_contact (contacts), and telegram_kick_member/promote_admin, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'group/channel this account administers' clause gives a clear precondition for use. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g. arriving via invite link versus direct add), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.